Free supper
In regards to the free supper for meeting your Canadian Wheat Board director, I feel that it is unfair for farmers that are forced to sell through the wheat board.
Why should I pay for people’s suppers? I don’t like the wheat board and am forced to sell through them. I asked if I could take 500 homeless people to the meeting for supper. They wouldn’t like it. They should respect whose money they are spending: someone else’s.
Earl Kovach,
Kipling, Sask.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Power line
In response to your article in The Western Producer, “Power line project angers Manitoba farmers”, (Jan. 14), I would like to provide the following comments.
The assessment of new transmission requirements was reviewed by the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board, with a decision made to develop the Bipole III transmission line on the west side of the province, following direction provided by the province of Manitoba.
There has been much debate on the additional cost of the west side route. Notwithstanding cost increments from a longer routing along the western corridor, Bipole III is a very important project for Manitoba.
A key objective with this line is to improve the reliability and security of the supply of electricity to all residents in the province. The western corridor provides a routing that is effective in achieving this objective.
Regarding adverse effects of a large transmission line, Manitoba Hydro is being very proactive to ensure the impact this line will have on people, the environment and infrastructure is minimized.
We are very concerned about minimizing the impact of this line on agricultural lands including irrigated lands and application methods such as aerial spraying. The extensive consultation process currently underway has been designed to identify and address concerns from all parties respecting potential routes in their area. As a result, we have received many comments on the effect of transmission lines on agricultural operations, which we are taking into consideration….
In Southern Manitoba, we propose the use self-supporting towers (no guy wires) to minimize impacts to farming practices. With respect to the one time payment for the acquisition of the 60-metre wide right-of-way, our corporate policy is a one-time payment equal to 75 percent of the market value of the affected land.
Agricultural property owners/operators will also be compensated for the structures constructed on their land based on our compensation/payment schedule in effect as of the date of construction. This compensation is over and above the easement payments, which compensates for loss of production and inefficient farming operations.
Manitoba Hydro also compensates for realignment of irrigation systems where it is deemed to be a practical solution as well as compensation for losses due to any inability to conduct aerial spraying providing the damage can be quantified….
Robert Brennan, FCA,
President and CEO, Manitoba Hydro,
Winnipeg, Man.
Give away land
The federal government is offering a carrot directed at young people to own and operate mixed farms here in Canada.
The average farmer and wife team are in their 50s and up to age 85. There will come a time in the near future where these people will no longer be able to operate the many farm operations in Canada. What will happen then? …
The solution perhaps would be for the government (to) buy farmers’ land that is for sale, along with the machinery and give at least 10 free quarters of farmland to any young Canadian to get them started in farming .
Also 10 years of interest free loans to produce food to feed the people of the world. This is a very good productive idea. Agriculture would be a booming business.
Greg Hemming,
Esterhazy, Sask.
Directors ignore wishes
Larry Hill, chair of the Canadian Wheat Board, argues that the democratically elected directors should determine the marketing choices of prairie farmers. If that’s the case, why are these directors ignoring the wishes of the majority of farmers?
A plebiscite conducted among barley producers in 2006 found that 62 percent wanted to have a choice over how they market their barley. Even the CWB’s own surveys show that a majority of farmers no longer support the CWB’s monopoly over wheat and barley.
The CWB election process is not an exercise in democracy. The outcome of the elections doesn’t reflect farmers’ wishes because the CWB itself appoints the election co-ordinator, sets the rules, and controls the voters list. This control gives the CWB the ability to ensure that landlords, retired farmers, hobby farmers and its monopoly supporters have enough ballots to elect the directors they want.
The CWB is a $5 billion operation dealing with numerous customers in many countries. It reflects poorly on the CWB and prairie farmers when the chair and his fellow dictators boast about democracy while ignoring the needs and wishes of the majority of farmers.
Bill Rusk,
Nipawin, Sask.
Local food
I would like to comment on the article, “Buy local not necessarily best for the environment” (Feb 25).
Pierre Desrochers gives a feasible argument when he suggests local food production actually contributes to greenhouse gas emissions because the majority of emissions occur in the production phase and not the transportation phase.
However, his statement that consumers driving to buy local produce can contribute far more carbon to the atmosphere than transporting food by airplane or ship to Canada is rather absurd.
Last time I checked, consumers still needed to drive to the large chain grocery store to purchase food. What difference would the carbon contribution make if the drive was to a locally run farmers market instead?
Desrochers also makes claims about the local food movement being a hindrance to the local economy and the only one who benefits is the farmer; this also in turn takes economic benefits away from developing nations who are in greater need than local producers are.
The average Canadian farmer does not enjoy financial security, as the increasing costs of production coupled with the decrease in control regarding profit allocations has resulted in a wedge from the market profit to what the producer actually receives for their product.
If selling produce locally is an economic benefit strictly for the farmer and no one else, then I say so be it. It is about time agriculture was financially profitable at the producer level.
Nicole Bansley,
Ridgedale, Sask.
Liberals & rural
Michael Ignatieff and his Liberals recently had a day-long roundtable discussing their need to gain popularity in the rural ridings of Canada, and “bridge the divide between urban and rural Canadians.”
They set out four platforms that would help them to accomplish this, ranging from objectives to attract doctors to rural regions, to getting high-speed internet connectivity to all rural Canadians.
I’m skeptical if these four main priorities they have discussed will help to bridge the divide and bring economic stability to rural Canada.
But as a young rural Canadian taking agriculture in university and hoping to end up back on the farm, it is great to see the federal political parties realizing that attracting rural votes is vital to their success.
Hopefully this will instill some competition among the parties, which will bring benefits to the often-overlooked rural ridings.
Agriculture has always been a backbone of this country and has roots that can be traced back to almost every citizen.
It is important that governments at all levels remember this and do what they can to preserve agriculture and the livelihood of rural citizens.
Rural ridings have typically voted conservative, something the Conservative party may have taken for granted in the past.
Competition may place an emphasis on making effective and innovative agriculture policies, and place a priority on the rural citizens of Canada. Agriculture has provided so much for Canadians over time that it would be nice to see something done in return.
Steve Cowan,
New Norway, Alta.
Unaffordable efficiencies
Twelve years ago I was told that having fewer and bigger grain elevators would be more efficient and better for me.
Today the tariff at these new efficient inland grain terminals is at least 50 percent higher than it was 12 years ago.
I was also told 12 years ago that if the rail system was streamlined to be more efficient, it would save money and I would be better off. Well, they have streamlined the rail system for the last 12 years (and still streamlining) and in that short time my freight bill is one third higher.
I hope the system doesn’t get any more efficient because my farming operation simply cannot afford any more of these railroad/grain company efficiencies.
It is no coincidence that our rural roads have deteriorated drastically in the last 12 years as the railways and grain companies become more efficient.
I don’t think our prairie provinces can afford any more of these railroad/grain company efficiencies either. I wonder if they will raise our taxes to help pay for all these railway/grain company efficiencies.
Edward Sagan,
Melville, Sask.
Carbon credits
When will people wake up and smell the coffee?
Activists like Dr. (David) Suzuki and Al Gore have been running around screaming climate change for years now, and yes, the climate will change, but we as humans will not have a snowball’s chance in Hades to control it.
On the other hand, how much money did these two men (Suzuki and Gore) reap from governments, via the people, and are still doing so with their commercials?
This carbon credit, go green, is only another money maker for whomever gets on the bandwagon first. The policy for Alberta, which is in place, and other provinces to follow, is that a company emitting a million tonnes of greenhouse gases would have to offset that by buying 12 percent of 120,000 tonnes of carbon credits.
These carbon credits can be bought from the agricultural world where farmers and ranchers use zero till, reduce feeding days of livestock, etc. This does not in the long run help the agricultural community.
Oh, yes, now it gives the farmer and rancher some extra coin in his pocket, but in the long run the land suffers from not being tilled and farmed properly. Don’t till your garden for five years and see what kind of crop you get.
If you have water and enough fertilizer, you can grow most anything on any surface you choose. Now you are beholden to the chemical giants. What you have put in one pocket you are taking out of another.
All of this trading in carbon credits does not change the fact that the large companies can still emit toxins and greenhouse gases to pollute our environment.
This is just a big money scam and another way for the kings to tax the peasants.
Remember, all that glitters is not gold.
Chris Lamoureux,
Fort St. John, B.C.
Sex and pork
Canadians are passionate about their bacon. Lately there has been quite a lot of news about how Canadians, in a national survey, responded to questions about their preference of having bacon or having sex.
Very informative, but there is more. There are news articles telling us that pork is actually a turn on for sex and I expect the pork industry will be using this to encourage their sales.
What a breakthrough that eating pork could be the final answer to conjure up those desires of our youth.
Is this the new cure-all for those with waning libidos? Is this the aphrodisiac the world has been waiting for?
I can see it all now: the advertisements proclaiming this wonder food, (and Manitoba Pork has certainly qualified as being an expert at billboard displays in the past); the butcher shops scrambling to keep their shelves stocked as throngs of adults are filling their baskets and shopping carts with oink products.
The male enhancement commercials, where a couple arrives very late for a concert, and the waiting taxi scenario, will advertise pork.
One very important question remains, however. Is this free range or factory raised pork? I’m sure it makes a difference. …
John Fefchak,
Virden, Man.
New thermometers
It’s been a long, cold winter, much colder than average. There are rumours that the Liberals and the NDP, along with other proponents of global warming, have formed a steady stream of shoppers at Canadian Tire.
The two main items they seek are new thermometers and new notebooks.
I don’t know why so many people have difficulty understanding that there are certain things on this planet that we don’t have control over.
One of them is what goes on inside the sun. The sun is a giant nuclear reactor. The amount of heat it generates is largely what determines our climate, and life on earth.
One thing we can be reassured of is that a liberal pounding on a podium or an aging 1960s hippie walking around with a placard does not affect the sun’s nuclear reaction.
No pun intended, but God help us if we ever try and control climate.
There’s nothing wrong with reducing harmful emissions. There is something terribly wrong, however, when the public believes that we have the intelligence and the ability to control the average temperature of the globe – especially when three people can’t agree on where to set the thermostat at the office or in house.
Sometimes we just have to accept that what is happening today is happening the way it was meant to.
I don’t pretend to know more than the next person but I do know this: having survived this winter, I’ll never complain about heat again.
John Hamon,
Gravelbourg, Sask.
Health-care concerns
Numerous citizens are fast losing faith in our elected officials in Saskatchewan.
Various citizens in the southwestern part of the province have taken the time and energy to write the premier and the minister of health concerning the problems with the Cypress Health Region. These citizens, many of them seniors, wrote in good faith to their elected officials and most have not had any response, especially from the minister of health.
For the majority of people, writing their elected officials is not an easy task and not one undertaken lightly. I would presume our elected officials would be prompt in their response to their citizens, but alas this does not seem to be the case.
A number of people have been waiting over three weeks for any response and the minority that did receive a reply from the premier were extremely disappointed. The response was not well considered and proceeded to blame things on the previous government.
This might have been the case when they took office and for the first year, but now they own the problems and should do something to fix them. The responses are nothing more than political platitudes and rhetoric, reminiscent of a party in opposition, not a government with concrete plans or solutions.
As a governing party, they can only attribute problems on the past government for a maximum of 18 months. …
Moreover, it is astounding the lack of obvious interest shown by these elected officials to the concerns of the citizens of the southwest. They have a duty and obligation to respond to these concerns.
Maybe they expect the problems will go away if they ignore them, or perhaps they really do not care about rural citizens. I surely hope it is not the latter but as one continues to hear nothing from the minister of health and only platitudes from the premier, it looks as if they do not care.
Do they not remember we pay their high salaries and for their wonderful perks? They work for us, not the other way around. Perchance these same ignored citizens will disregard these politicians at the ballot box.
Alan S. Howard,
Eastend, Sask.
